Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

One of Many Pet Peeves

red615442017-07-21 12:07:24pmUpdated: 2017-07-21 2:07:14pm

Many of our writers need to explore the difference between "passed" and "past". When someone walks by you, they passed you. If they did it yesterday, they passed you in the past! The last time you died, your past may have passed before your eyes; but your passed didn't! Passed is always a verb. Past maybe be an adjective, a noun, an adverb, or even a preposition, but never a verb. I feel much better now that I've ranted!

Another one is doubling consonants. When adding an ending like -ing or -ed to a word, there is a simple rule to follow. If the preceding vowel is long, the consonant is not doubled. Ex: dine, dining. If the vowel is short, the consonant is doubled. Ex: dam, dammed. A few of my favorite authors don't seem to know this rule, and while I can read past it, it always bugs me a little.

Traveled/traveling (the "e" before the "l" is not long, yet the consonant is not doubled).

Unless you use British English which spells it "travelled" (the correct way per your rule).

ETA: This is from Grammarly.com

The word travel has more than one syllable—it's a multisyllabic word. In American English, when a multisyllabic word ends in a vowel and a consonant (in that order), you double the consonant when adding a suffix only if the stress falls on the final syllable. For instance, in the word repel, the stress falls on the final syllable, which means that you double the consonant when you add a suffix: repelling. But in travel, the stress falls on the first syllable, so there's no doubling.

Traveled/traveling (the "e" before the "l" is not long, yet the consonant is not doubled).

Unless you use British English which spells it "travelled" (the correct way per your rule).

What can I say? English itself is just as much about exceptions as it is rules, and American English I think is even more so. I blew Attic Greek because I couldn't remember all the exceptions, but that was because I had to do them all at once. In English, we learn them one at a time, and they become ingrained pretty much by osmosis, with High School (Levels 9-11 for you across the pond, if I understand the correlation) classes just tuning up the edges.

Another one is doubling consonants. When adding an ending like -ing or -ed to a word, there is a simple rule to follow. If the preceding vowel is long, the consonant is not doubled. Ex: dine, dining. If the vowel is short, the consonant is doubled. Ex: dam, dammed.

When I was a wee lad at school, I was taught that when you add 'ing' or 'ed' to the end of a word and it ended in a consonant preceded by a single vowel you doubled the last letter. However, that's the rule in UK English, and the US English rarely follows that rule. It was never presented to me as being the sound length of the vowel.

Ernest, as annoying as they are, they don't eat much, never shit on the floor, and don't shed. When you tire of them, they are easy to get rid of: simply give them to an author who will use them until they die of over-use.

Cats have fur, dogs have hair. Hence having some "hair of the dog" on the morning after. Never heard anyone talk about having some "fur of the dog", yet I've seen quite a few writers talk about a dog's fur.

Shih Tzus still have hair, it's not as coarse as other dogs, but it's not fur.
Same as Pomeranians etc.
The need for regular hair cuts is either due to living in an unsuitable climate (eg huskies in tropical areas), and more & more, breeding for specific traits going way too far.

The terms fur and hair are often used interchangeably when describing a dog's coat, however in general, a double coat, e.g., like that of the Newfoundland and most mountain dogs, is referred to as a fur coat, while a single coat, like that of the Poodle, is referred to as a hair coat.

The coat of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) refers to the hair that covers its body.

The only time I've ever seen the terms used interchangably are from US based authors.
I'm guessing it's like he use of drugged for dragged, it's just used more widely; instead of referring to the thickness or thickness of the hair coverage they say fur or hair.

The only time I've ever seen the terms used interchangably are from US based authors.

Not just US based authors. This gets done by AKC (American Kennel Club) and UKC (United Kennel Club, it's a US based organization not connected to the UK in any way) breeders.

To me, the quoted distinction (single coat vs double coat) makes more sense for hair vs fur than trying to use thickness of individual hairs or thickness of coverage.

Most other animals that are considered fur bearing are double coated. Mink, beaver, foxes, pretty much anything you might think of as being used to make a fur coat are double coated.

Double coated means there are two layers of hair, an under coat of courser hair that provides most of the thermal insulation, and a longer overcoat.

All cat breeds, and dog breeds that shed seasonally are double coated. It's the insulating undercoat that gets shed. They shed the winter undercoat in the spring and grow back a lighter undercoat for the summer, then in fall they shed the light summer undercoat and grow in a heaver warmer undercoat.

Yep, and they all feel very different to the fur of Cats (short or long), Kangaroos etc.

Nope, lots of hair falls into the category you call fur and a lot of fur falls into what you call hair. It's a non-distinction because both hair and fur is highly variable for both thickness and stiffness at any length.

The fluidity of English must confound those who don't speak it as their native language. Think of the verb (and noun) "run". There probably are over a hundred meaning for that simple three letter word. By the way, did the professor lie about lying the corpse after he laid the body to rest?